From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C4E9F357D5 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 07:07:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 45CB96B0005; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 02:07:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 40A516B0088; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 02:07:04 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2EBC56B008A; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 02:07:04 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197ED6B0005 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 02:07:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin10.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90EFF16029C for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 07:07:03 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 84482097126.10.6BA3BA0 Received: from out-182.mta1.migadu.com (out-182.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.182]) by imf14.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90557100003 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 07:07:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=dzQKIHxm; spf=pass (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of hao.li@linux.dev designates 95.215.58.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hao.li@linux.dev; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1772003222; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=tpvLQxtbQWh2N7FZ++DQupypg0lscccTVas+NlAuk2ksVkgCLi7ssvs9uif8tqkvstTeiE A9Fb6cI3A2fO5+2Cfwc26/f0t7vrNUrVmu62lVX6xkE3tEraS4SpxaL1Hl7G/F9QFDifO2 Wu/IajGAFoHqGOCImEQSpZULdvarenk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=dzQKIHxm; spf=pass (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of hao.li@linux.dev designates 95.215.58.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hao.li@linux.dev; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1772003222; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=2XCqGwE2JITi+kn+HyNQ55mzrR4dNxt4VlIjP1tP+zg=; b=buLVnZCE6GpxPlFUUJNlAiZUBsmwRZ+K5eMigxKeF+1Te4U8XDqFYtKSMULUQRCy2ypK70 XCJxKgLneNtxxumYxzSR0plBJIdE/NBMrnzWd/UBFwe7l4Tsj9BJqHzQXeDkJinwcImfWr mxM7Kb9nRoPQ85QgVkywayGnFJ8ZMaQ= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 15:06:46 +0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1772003219; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=2XCqGwE2JITi+kn+HyNQ55mzrR4dNxt4VlIjP1tP+zg=; b=dzQKIHxm7dbe1pGFIYt7fFjcQk5E1h3vzOTZygUNDAm35NZPiwaM89uQx9OF+X3qbsJx90 v5Nq9bqlyB7pQfueQt0u+7ki47sla6afPhY4Dbq5gK0yZn8vw34aZHVQlZM1BltVofHY0W /35Vct7R9sC8s7Gvtf1LSukzKw5M8zg= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Hao Li To: Harry Yoo Cc: Ming Lei , Vlastimil Babka , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, surenb@google.com Subject: Re: [Regression] mm:slab/sheaves: severe performance regression in cross-CPU slab allocation Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 90557100003 X-Stat-Signature: 5k1he56r37pyjmef6dqoxq1mhz947zu5 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-HE-Tag: 1772003221-839061 X-HE-Meta: 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 rQ2MN8pt TZHYc3lzRLIPf7WUGEMG6OyJi03Kn94j/ZM7u37w6MonHMa62H4Z4aeL4cvSUSN9OEKGzCP9fjA0HzGTddZGjXCwzo0pYy3xY0Q6dX89/HwDis6CgGy9mtuWj7gYQfIivZQrvBCjnUeYUmoi377IDVSaeJjxiun1RWzD4JKqlqrDLnW4r55/usEfPSY3u0UIXwYhzwowjPRnv5TA= Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 03:54:06PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 01:32:36PM +0800, Hao Li wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 05:07:18PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > Hi Harry, > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 02:00:15PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 10:52:28AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > Hello Vlastimil and MM guys, > > > > > > > > Hi Ming, thanks for the report! > > > > > > > > > The SLUB "sheaves" series merged via 815c8e35511d ("Merge branch > > > > > 'slab/for-7.0/sheaves' into slab/for-next") introduces a severe > > > > > performance regression for workloads with persistent cross-CPU > > > > > alloc/free patterns. ublk null target benchmark IOPS drops > > > > > significantly compared to v6.19: from ~36M IOPS to ~13M IOPS (~64% > > > > > drop). > > > > > > > > > > Bisecting within the sheaves series is blocked by a kernel panic at > > > > > 17c38c88294d ("slab: remove cpu (partial) slabs usage from allocation > > > > > paths"), so the exact first bad commit could not be identified. > > > > > > > > Ouch. Why did it crash? > > > > > > [ 16.162422] Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdead000000000110: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI > > > [ 16.162426] CPU: 44 UID: 0 PID: 908 Comm: (udev-worker) Not tainted 6.19.0-rc5_master+ #116 PREEMPT(lazy) > > > [ 16.162429] Hardware name: Giga Computing MZ73-LM2-000/MZ73-LM2-000, BIOS R19_F40 05/12/2025 > > > [ 16.162430] RIP: 0010:__put_partials+0x2f/0x140 > > > [ 16.162437] Code: 41 57 41 56 49 89 f6 41 55 49 89 fd 31 ff 41 54 45 31 e4 55 53 48 83 ec 18 48 c7 44 24 10 00 00 00 00 eb 03 48 89 df 4c9 > > > [ 16.162438] RSP: 0018:ff5117c0ca2dfa60 EFLAGS: 00010086 > > > [ 16.162441] RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: ff1b266981200d80 RCX: 0000000000000246 > > > [ 16.162442] RDX: ff1b266981200d90 RSI: ff1b266981200d90 RDI: ff1b266981200d80 > > > [ 16.162442] RBP: dead000000000100 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffffffa761bf5e > > > [ 16.162443] R10: ffb6d4b7841d5400 R11: ff1b2669800575c0 R12: 0000000000000000 > > > [ 16.162444] R13: ff1b2669800575c0 R14: dead000000000100 R15: ffb6d4b7846be410 > > > [ 16.162445] FS: 00007f5fdccc23c0(0000) GS:ff1b267902427000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > > > [ 16.162446] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > > > [ 16.162446] CR2: 0000559824c6c058 CR3: 000000011fb49001 CR4: 0000000000f71ef0 > > > [ 16.162447] PKRU: 55555554 > > > [ 16.162448] Call Trace: > > > [ 16.162450] > > > [ 16.162452] kmem_cache_free+0x410/0x490 > > > [ 16.162454] do_readlinkat+0x14e/0x180 > > > [ 16.162459] __x64_sys_readlinkat+0x1c/0x30 > > > [ 16.162461] do_syscall_64+0x7e/0x6b0 > > > [ 16.162465] ? post_alloc_hook+0xb9/0x140 > > > [ 16.162468] ? get_page_from_freelist+0x478/0x720 > > > [ 16.162470] ? path_openat+0xb3/0x2a0 > > > [ 16.162472] ? __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof+0x192/0x350 > > > [ 16.162474] ? count_memcg_events+0xd6/0x210 > > > [ 16.162476] ? memcg1_commit_charge+0x7a/0xa0 > > > [ 16.162479] ? mod_memcg_lruvec_state+0xe7/0x2d0 > > > [ 16.162481] ? charge_memcg+0x48/0x80 > > > [ 16.162482] ? lruvec_stat_mod_folio+0x85/0xd0 > > > [ 16.162484] ? __folio_mod_stat+0x2d/0x90 > > > [ 16.162487] ? set_ptes.isra.0+0x36/0x80 > > > [ 16.162490] ? do_anonymous_page+0x100/0x4a0 > > > [ 16.162492] ? __handle_mm_fault+0x45d/0x6f0 > > > [ 16.162493] ? count_memcg_events+0xd6/0x210 > > > [ 16.162494] ? handle_mm_fault+0x212/0x340 > > > [ 16.162495] ? do_user_addr_fault+0x2b4/0x7b0 > > > [ 16.162500] ? irqentry_exit+0x6d/0x540 > > > [ 16.162502] ? exc_page_fault+0x7e/0x1a0 > > > [ 16.162503] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e > > > > For this problem, I have a hypothesis which is inspired by a comment in the > > patch "slab: remove cpu (partial) slabs usage from allocation paths": > > > > /* > > * get a single object from the slab. This might race against __slab_free(), > > * which however has to take the list_lock if it's about to make the slab fully > > * free. > > */ > > > > My understanding is that this comment is pointing out a possible race between > > __slab_free() and get_from_partial_node(). Since __slab_free() takes > > n->list_lock when it is about to make the slab fully free, and > > get_from_partial_node() also takes the same lock, the two paths should be > > mutually excluded by the lock and thus safe. > > > > However, I'm wondering if there could be another race window. Suppose CPU0's > > get_from_partial_node() has already finished __slab_update_freelist(), but has > > not yet reached remove_partial(). In that gap, another CPU1 could free an object > > to the same slab via __slab_free(). CPU1 would observe was_full == 1 (due to the > > previous get_from_partial_node()->__slab_update_freelist() on CPU0), and then > > > > __slab_free() will call put_cpu_partial(s, slab, 1) without holding > > n->list_lock, trying to add this slab to the CPU partial list. > > If CPU1 observes was_full == 1, it should spin on n->list_lock and wait > for CPU0 to release the lock. And CPU0 will remove the slab from the > partial list before releasing the lock. Or am I missing something? > > > In that case, > > both paths would operate on the same union field in struct slab, which might > > lead to list corruption. > > Not sure how the scenario you describe could happen: > > CPU 0 CPU1 > - get_from_partial_node() > -> spin_lock(&n->list_lock) > - __slab_free() > -> __slab_update_freelist(), > slab becomes full > -> was_full == 1 > -> spin_lock(&n->list_lock) In __slab_free, if was_full == 1, then the condition !(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL) && was_full) becomes false, so it won't enter the "if" block and therefore n->list_lock is not acquired. Does that sound right. -- Thanks, Hao > // starts spining > -> if (!new.freelist) > -> remove_partial() > -> spin_unlock() > -> spin_lock(&n->list_lock) > // acquired! > -> slab_update_freelist() > -> spin_unlock(&n->list_lock) > > -- > Cheers, > Harry / Hyeonggon